Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

reply to post by WhatTheory


I need to get my connections with police stronger. Might want to start doing monthly tests on water at their labs.

You can go without doubt that people like me, and so very many like me, do lots of water tests.

If even the slightest anomaly is seen, it can be reported

reply to post by WhatTheory


Not a surprise to me WT. Birds of a feather, socialists in this case, flock together. The Nazis, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, would have instituted similar breeding controls if they had succeeded.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by JScytale

 

So people agree its a problem, and something has to be *done*..but no one is in favour of the *doing*?

Doublespeak is ungood.

maybe you should have read comments like "china's approach is probably the most moral one tried so far" before making assumptions.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
What is going on here?

This guy is a total fascist/marxist

zombietime.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 7/13/2009 by WhatTheory]

 

Removed censor circumvention and replaced it with [stuff]

[edit on 13/7/09 by masqua]

you'll have to explain how wanting these terrible things makes him marxist. unless he happens to believe in that which marx talked of which is well documented elsewhere, i think you'll find none of the things mentioned above are a required element of any form of socialism or communism whatsoever. it's entirely unrelated. people need to learn about socialism and communism (and marx for that matter) and stop using it as a buzz word to describe all things bad.

Originally posted by Renegade Bison
you'll have to explain how wanting these terrible things makes him marxist. unless he happens to believe in that which marx talked of which is well documented elsewhere, i think you'll find none of the things mentioned above are a required element of any form of socialism or communism whatsoever. it's entirely unrelated. people need to learn about socialism and communism (and marx for that matter) and stop using it as a buzz word to describe all things bad.

most americans who use socialism as a term for "bad" would probably have their minds completely blown to learn that ideas such as "equal rights for all", "freedom from oppression", "i own what i produce", etc are all thoroughly marxist ideas. In fact I simply can't see how a human being with a conscience could consider capitalism to be the *morally* superior choice over marxism if he thoroughly understood both theories.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by JScytale


Yea cause mobile abortion vans to get those law breakers is so moral. Oh by the way, the one child policy is only enforced on those who can't pay the fine. So therefore the elite of China can still have more than one child. Lots of morality to pursue there! Just more power to the people.

I think the point some of you are missing is it is not the governments role to decide who reproduces. The carrying on of our bloodlines is instinctual and at the heart of our desire to survive as a species.

With many if not most people, sterilization would have to be forced or coerced. Religious beliefs and the right to practice them would have to be ignored and removed.

There in fact is no difference between this and what Hitler tried to do as at some point who would and would not be allowed to reproduce would have to be mandated by someone.

Were it not for the massive influx of both legal and illegal immigrants, the population of the US would already be shrinking. Knowing that; we would be talking about forcing sterilization upon other cultures and countries. Much the same as what was attempted by Hitler and his ideology.

At some point a decision would have to be made as to who reproduces and who does not. That would surely be based upon factors that would now and rightly so, be considered good old fashioned bigotry and hate.

Just as Hitler never had the courage to suggest the sterilization or elimination of his German counterparts, Holdren and his fellow authors are clearly talking about forcing this upon other countries and cultures. Short of suggesting the extermination in whole of undesirable classes of people by their definition, there is little difference.

I'd have never thought those with such radical beliefs could have taken complete control of our government, but I stand corrected. Obama's appointments scream to me that he is trying to shove as many of his radical beliefs down our throats as he can; as fast as he can. He knows when the the truth sinks in, the actual cost of his visions become reality and everyone realizes their entire culture and way of life are gone it will be too late to stop them. Once our government does anything, right or wrong, it is never fixed.

Carter baffled me with his incompetence. Bush One made me wonder with his beliefs in a One World Order. Clinton amazed me with his bravado but never worried me. Bush Two angered me. With Obama, for the first time in my life starting with Kennedy, I am scared of the man in the White House. These appointments just add to that fear.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by JScytale

 

Yea cause mobile abortion vans to get those law breakers is so moral. Oh by the way, the one child policy is only enforced on those who can't pay the fine. So therefore the elite of China can still have more than one child. Lots of morality to pursue there! Just more power to the people.

lets look at everything wrong with the best solution so far (which can be improved upon, by the way) and completely ignore the problem. china and india are excellent case studies on what the planet is going to go through soon. china is trying to do something about it, india is not.

i'm not a fan of government dictating what people should or should not do in their own time, but ignoring the problem for too long will cause a crisis worse than any in the history of humanity. Once you pass the point of no return, millions to billions are going to die, and the planet will be hopelessly scarred. remember: resources are not infinite. sustainable resources can only support so many. population increases exponentially.

it has happened before in smaller closed systems. just look at easter island.
en.wikipedia.org...

this is what happens when population exceeds what the environment is capable of supporting.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by JScytale

lets look at everything wrong with the best solution so far (which can be improved upon, by the way) and completely ignore the problem. china and india are excellent case studies on what the planet is going to go through soon. china is trying to do something about it, india is not.

Firstly there is no consensus on what the problem is. There are different social factors driving India's population growth. IT IS NOT A WORLD WIDE PROBLEM. It is India's problem. It is China's problem. it has been shown over and over again the developed nations of the world are experiencing negative population growth. This is obviously not a widespread problem.

i'm not a fan of government dictating what people should or should not do in their own time, but ignoring the problem for too long will cause a crisis worse than any in the history of humanity.

Doublespeak. You are obviously ok with it since you profess china's forced abortion/one child policy is the most moral position.

Once you pass the point of no return, millions to billions are going to die, and the planet will be hopelessly scarred. remember: resources are not infinite. sustainable resources can only support so many. population increases exponentially.
[edit on 13-7-2009 by JScytale]

Once again your model is based on flawed logic. It does not take into account many variables regarding population growth and resource use. Furthermore I link you another argument showing just how little population there is on this planet. You could fit the entire population of the planet in England with room to spare. I doubt you read it. The facts don't support overpopulation. The policy makers do because it allows them to grab even more power. Just like global warming, 9/11, WMD's in Iraq etc. etc.

Your Easter Island video proves nothing. No one knows specifically what happened to those people. As we don't see huge mass graves there we must assume most of them left for other areas with resources. No one is saying wanton waste is a good thing.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia

Firstly there is no consensus on what the problem is. There are different social factors driving India's population growth. IT IS NOT A WORLD WIDE PROBLEM. It is India's problem. It is China's problem. it has been shown over and over again the developed nations of the world are experiencing negative population growth. This is obviously not a widespread problem.

I beg to differ.

by the way, the current *conservative* projection estimates the population of the planet to be 9 billion by 2040. Bear in mind population growth is exponential. There are more people alive today than have been alive and died in the entire history of the human race.

And this isn't "chinas problem" or "india's problem" alone. countries are not isolated little islands each with their own little independent worlds (contrary to what most americans seem to believe). not only that, but guess what severe shortage of resources tends to cause?

Doublespeak. You are obviously ok with it since you profess china's forced abortion/one child policy is the most moral position.

How is "china's solution is the best tried so far. lets improve upon it and try to find a more acceptable approach" doublespeak?

Once again your model is based on flawed logic. It does not take into account many variables regarding population growth and resource use. Furthermore I link you another argument showing just how little population there is on this planet. You could fit the entire population of the planet in England with room to spare. I doubt you read it. The facts don't support overpopulation. The policy makers do because it allows them to grab even more power. Just like global warming, 9/11, WMD's in Iraq etc. etc.

Again, you severely underestimate just how much land would be required to feed them, let alone supply them with the resources to live comfortable lives (hint - its more land than we use for this today). And if every single person were to adopt the wasteful american lifestyle... lets say we better damn well have a few million robots mining underwater, and portable machines that can turn air into food (and then recycle waste back into air).

www.commondreams.org...

[edit on 13-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by JScytale


Ahhh yes China and its one child policy, truly the world paragon of human rights, freedom and enviromental sustainability! Western nations surely should adopt such moral measures to solve overpopulation! (wait, western nations dont have an overpopulation problem, and are actually in decline already? Nevermind that!)

I've gotta ask you man, whats your honest opinion on this Ecoscience book? Sensible solution or runaway eugenical insanity?! Lay them card on the table my Marxist friend!

I beg to differ.

by the way, the current projection estimates the population of the planet to be 9 billion by 2040. Bear in mind population growth is exponential.

You show me one graph when the UN's own data shows population growth dropping after 7 Billion? Again your logic is flawed, i have told you why and i will not repeat myself.

How is "china's solution is the best tried so far. lets improve upon it and try to find a more acceptable approach" doublespeak?

Doublespeak is when one acknowledges something and in the same breathe outright denies it. Or does vice versa. You said China's model was the most moral yet you proclaim you don't like government getting involved in daily life. This makes no sense. What could be a more intimate daily life issue than one's own reproductive choices? As stated earlier China's reproductive policy is a farce because all one needs is the right amount of money and they can have as many children as they want. One can safely say this is simply to keep the POOR and only the poor from having children. This is eugenics at it's finest.

Again, you severely underestimate just how much land would be required to feed them, let alone supply them with the resources to live comfortable lives. And if every single person were to adopt the wasteful american lifestyle... lets say we better damn well have a few million robots mining underwater, and portable machines that can turn air into food (and then recycle waste back into air).

Actually Air into water is real technology. There are atmospheric water generators. The viability of air into food is also real (though not made yet). You apparently don't keep up on new technologies. These are all within the realm of physics. As is water from rocks. Water is not a finite resource. It is constantly recycled as is biomass. Water desalinization has also come a long way. Newer and better solar cells are being made all the time. Most petro-products can be made using Hemp. It goes without saying if one can in fact fit everyone in the country of England then there would be a lot of open land to farm. The problem is most people are stuffed into compact cities. That's why your sense of perspective is so skewed. Once you get out of the city you'll realize most of the land on earth is not used for anything.


[edit on 13-7-2009 by antonia]

[edit on 13-7-2009 by antonia]

[edit on 13-7-2009 by antonia]

Originally posted by antonia
Doublespeak is when one acknowledges something and in the same breathe outright denies it. Or does vice versa. You said China's model was the most moral yet you proclaim you don't like government getting involved in daily life. This makes no sense.

How can it be this hard for you to understand what I am saying? Do I like what China is doing? Personally, no. Do I realize it is necessary? Absolutely. Do I think it is better than genocide or mass sterilization? Absolutely. Out of the solutions tried before, it is the most justifiable. Are better solutions possible? Yes, but none that have been proposed yet.

Actually Air into water is real technology. There are atmospheric water generators. The viability of air into food is also real (though not made yet).

No, it isn't. There is a rather large difference between creating water out of pure air, and collecting water vapor.

You apparently don't keep up on new technologies. These are all within the realm of physics. As is water from rocks. Water is not a finite resource. It is constantly recycled as is biomass. Water desalinization has also come a long way.

I assure you, water fit for human consumption is a very finite resource. Oh, and guess how much power (other resources) it takes to desalinate water on a large scale?

It goes without saying if one can in fact fit everyone in the country of England then there would be a lot of open land to farm. The problem is most people are stuffed into compact cities. That's why your sense of perspective is so skewed. Once you get out of the city you'll realize most of the land on earth is not used for anything.

I am not a city-dweller, in fact I used to live in a rural town in Ecuador. And I assure you, all that "land not used for anything" has a very specific, important purpose. People not #ing with the forests lets us enjoy our nice supply of oxygen - a sustainable resource with a limit. As human population expands and plant life diminishes, there is a point where the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere would be finite. That and a whole lot of land is unfit for human population or use. Unless you would enjoy trying to farm in northern Siberia?

You show me one graph when the UN's own data shows population growth dropping after 7 Billion? Again your logic is flawed, i have told you why and i will not repeat myself.

Where do you get your information? Because your colon isn't a good source.

www.abc.net.au...

The UN estimates that the number of people on the planet will grow from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion by the year 2050.

It says the rate of growth is unsustainable when climate change is damaging farm land and reducing water supplies.

Robert Engelman from the World Watch Institute is an author on population issues.

"Concern about the future world population is very much warranted, frankly it has been for a while," Mr Engelman said.

"Taking some sort of actions that are completely within the scope of our values and what we believe is right is entirely appropriate to do and there actually many such actions that we can take."

unless you're referring to a severely outdated claim made by the UN in 2001 that was proven to be false. As you can see, they don't deny it anymore.

feel free to explore this site.
www.un.org...

[edit on 13-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by JScytale
No, it isn't. There is a rather large difference between creating water out of pure air, and collecting water vapor.

There is no such thing as pure air. Air is made up on many things, water is normally always present in air.

I assure you, water fit for human consumption is a very finite resource. Oh, and guess how much power (other resources) it takes to desalinate water on a large scale?

The only limitation withe regard to water is how many people are using a specific table. Southern California has this problem because there are simply too many people using one water table. Some areas experience drought. People just learn to follow the water. That's why most towns and cities are located near a river or lake. The whole idea human beings are going to use up every drop of water of the planet is just silly though. It is constantly renewed through the water cycle. Do i need to explain that concept to you? Your body is mostly water, the whole planet is mostly water. Do you have any idea how much water humans would need to use for it to suddenly just disappear?

I am not a city-dweller, in fact I used to live in a rural town in Ecuador. And I assure you, all that "land not used for anything" has a very specific, important purpose. People not #ing with the forests lets us enjoy our nice supply of oxygen - a sustainable resource with a limit. As human population expands and plant life diminishes, there is a point where the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere would be finite. That and a whole lot of land is unfit for human population or use. Unless you would enjoy trying to farm in northern Siberia

You could refrain from cursing. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea most of the land is used simply because of where you live. That's not exactly the most scientific statement.

Where do you get your information? Because your colon isn't a good source.

What does my colon have to do with any of this?

unless you're referring to a severely outdated claim made by the UN in 2001 that was proven to be false. As you can see, they don't deny it anymore.

Of course not, why would the UN want to deny it? Means they wouldn't get the power they want. Agian all the figures you give are contingent on the birth rates not changing for several decades. They have changed, others have refuted these arguments. I used to believe this crap too then i decided to think for myself and did the research myself. The math only holds if the patterns stay the same. They have not stayed the same therefore the math is wrong.

At this point i should just say i talk to plants and the plants are telling me the earth is gonna be ok. That would do more good than science at this point. I'm out guys have fun!

[edit on 13-7-2009 by antonia]

[edit on 13-7-2009 by antonia]

The United States is the heartland of Eugenics - it was invented by your good selves. Your own country engaged in radical programmes of forced sterlization - so this has already been done by your own fascist / Marxist state - sooooo whats the point of this thread ?

While we are on it - the most fundamental form of Fascism is state run by the corporation and their oligarchs - in other words the United States of America is the perfect example of the fascist state....................followed by modern Russia and then UK. Its all about getting the trains to run on time - because as all you suckers believe private enterprise can do things better - that IS fascism.

Anyone who wants a link to prove the US are the Fathers of Eugenics need only ask - it would be my pleasure to point out your dark heart -



www.uvm.edu...

I though i was the only one with that theory! I hope they do put brith control into the water. Too many teenagers and other single women looking for a government handout are having babies that will never know their fathers. Dont bring children into the world if theres no place for them...Alot of kids dont have fathers simply cause the fathers just wanted sex. If thats all it was just sex and no pointless birth, the population can be effectivley controlled. Alot of people are jobless right now...Think about how much easier it would be to get a job if there was say...half the people there are now. Itd be a snap! People think abortions are so bad but in my opinion they could help save the world from the fatherless jobtakers and criminals! Kids turn out alot better when they have both parents anyway. This article hits my opinions right on the button. If you gave human women the power to have any random guys baby then we're gonna end up overpopulated and jobless looking at each other like..."Why in the # are we here right now? I dont wanna be here. The previous generation is too damn numerous...WTF is the point" Does anybody understand what im getting at?

Originally posted by The Answer
I though i was the only one with that theory! I hope they do put brith control into the water. Too many teenagers and other single women looking for a government handout are having babies that will never know their fathers. Dont bring children into the world if theres no place for them...Alot of kids dont have fathers simply cause the fathers just wanted sex. If thats all it was just sex and no pointless birth, the population can be effectivley controlled. Alot of people are jobless right now...Think about how much easier it would be to get a job if there was say...half the people there are now. Itd be a snap! People think abortions are so bad but in my opinion they could help save the world from the fatherless jobtakers and criminals! Kids turn out alot better when they have both parents anyway. This article hits my opinions right on the button. If you gave human women the power to have any random guys baby then we're gonna end up overpopulated and jobless looking at each other like..."Why in the # are we here right now? I dont wanna be here. The previous generation is too damn numerous...WTF is the point" Does anybody understand what im getting at?

Nice avoidance of the filters - but how about we start with you as a canditate for extermination - if your ok with that ? Then we can go right ahead and be rid of you and your sick mind. If your not ok with it - then you can understand why.

Originally posted by antonia
The only limitation withe regard to water is how many people are using a specific table. Southern California has this problem because there are simply too many people using one water table. Some areas experience drought. People just learn to follow the water. That's why most towns and cities are located near a river or lake. The whole idea human beings are going to use up every drop of water of the planet is just silly though. It is constantly renewed through the water cycle. Do i need to explain that concept to you? Your body is mostly water, the whole planet is mostly water. Do you have any idea how much water humans would need to use for it to suddenly just disappear?

you underestimate the effects of human population putting strain on water supplies almost worldwide, not in isolated cases. yes - water is renewable, but clean fresh water only partially so. you also have to use other (finite) resources to process contaminated water and salt water.

en.wikipedia.org...

Freshwater is a renewable and changeable, but limited natural resource. Freshwater can only be renewed through the process of the water cycle, where water from seas, lakes, rivers, and dams evaporates, forms clouds, and returns to water sources as precipitation. However, if more freshwater is consumed through human activities than is restored by nature, the result is that the quantity of freshwater available in lakes, rivers, dams and underground waters is reduced which can cause serious damage to the surrounding environment.

environment.about.com...

Ocean water may cover more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface, but thirsty humans rely on finite supplies of freshwater to stay alive. And with exploding human population growth, especially in poor countries, these finite supplies get quickly spoken for. Further, in places without proper sanitation, water can become tainted with any number of diseases and parasites.

Sandra Postel, author of the 1998 book, Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity, predicts big water availability problems as populations of so-called “water-stressed” countries jump perhaps six fold over the next 30 years. “It raises tons of issues about water and agriculture, growing enough food, providing for all the material needs that people demand as incomes increase, and providing drinking water,” says Postel.

You could refrain from cursing. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea most of the land is used simply because of where you live. That's not exactly the most scientific statement.

About as scientific as saying I wouldn't understand because I must live in a city. I am willing to bet you live in a first world country, most likely the US (given your apparent opinion that natural resources are plentiful and near unlimited). You have no idea what the world is really like.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by WhatTheory


crazy... plain and simple...

We should seek nothing but perfect track records from elected officials and their advisors. To be given that much power they should be held to an incredibly high standard, period.
This is a big skid mark on this guys record.
No one that has written things like this should be in control... unless thats what our govt is actually looking for...

Ive said it before, I'll say it again... It all boils down to food!
We know some of the crap the FDA ALLOWS to be put in our food, and yet people still eat it.
Organic or nothing. Help local farmers, support your local community, eat safe food.
I mean think about it, if you wanted to poison someone what would you do?
Put it in their food or drink. Its so simple and the govt has access to all of it someway or another...

Originally posted by audas
fascist / Marxist state

I wish there was a shot that cured ignorance.

en.wikipedia.org...

Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.[6] Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[9] Fascism is much defined by what it opposes, what scholars call the fascist negations - its opposition to individualism,[10] rationalism, liberalism, conservatism and communism. [11]

en.wikipedia.org...

Marxism is the political philosophy and practice derived from the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, though the name "Marxism" has been used by many with political perspectives those men would likely reject. Marxism is a political-economic theory that presents a materialist conception of history, a non-capitalist vision of capitalism and other types of society, and a non-religious view of human liberation. Closely related to the ideology of communism. At its core, Marxism holds a critical analysis of capitalism and a theory of social change. The original Marxian vision consisted of three complementary parts, each of which is hard to separate from the other two:

1. The dialectical and materialist conception of history. Marx interpreted the history of any society as being the result of conflicts within society, including those between social classes (e.g., bourgeoisie and proletariat) and between the development of the forces of production (technology, the labor force, etc.) and the relations of production (institutions). Accordingly, a society's possible futures are interpreted in terms of these conflicts.

2. The critique of capitalism. Capitalism is seen as a society in which a small minority of the population (the bourgeoisie or capitalists) dominates and exploits the vast majority (the working class or proletariat). In Marx's labor theory of value, workers typically have no choice but produce more value and more output than is necessary to pay the cost of their reproduction as people in society over time. They do this under conditions that they do not control, i.e., under the direction of the supervisors and threatened by unemployment or poverty the rather than following democratic decision-making, and thus give the surplus-product to the owners, the bourgeoisie. The capitalists then use this surplus (also called surplus value) to accumulate more wealth and power for themselves. Often, this accumulation goes 'too far', causing an economic crisis.

3. The theory of revolution. In Marx's conception, workers under capitalism are alienated since they do not control a major portion of their day (the working-day) and must follow orders, producing goods or services that they do not own and cannot choose to avoid producing. They are alienated from their own true selves as members of society and from nature. The solution -- which Marx saw as existing below the surface of actual bourgeois society -- was for workers to unite in labor union and political parties, to take political and economic power away from the bourgeoisie. In fact, he saw this kind of collective self-liberation as the only true liberation of the working class.